CPZ controlled parking in Denman/Talfourd/Lyndhurst/Bushey Hill/Crofton/Shenley

[jimlad48]

Best news I've heard all week! Wonderful result and a great example of the community pulling together to make life better.

[Earl Aelfheah]

... except for their neighbours just outside the zone

[mancity68]

Pretty angry about this. The consultation results show a pretty clear split between roads that wanted and roads that didn't and the council have decided that it's in the best interests of the roads that don't want to make us have one anyway. Apparently we'd just end up wanting one in due course... how kind.

But you know, glad others are happy. maybe that great community spirit could organise a whip round for those that can't afford the extra costs this brings with it.

[Phlox]

I have lived in a CPZ area. The cost of visitor permits kept climbing. How much are the Southwark ones?

[jimlad48]

The cost of Southwark parking permits have gone up ?5 in about 10 years.

These sort of consultations never make everyone happy, but in the case of a couple of the streets that wanted to be left out, then the salutary tale I'd offer is that the council did just this back in 2012 when it last consulted the toastrack area. There was a split so they created a split CPZ, which in turn resulted in everyone not wanting to pay parking their cars a few streets over, and at the same time increased pressure happened when all the commuters started parking there too. Demands for a new consultation quickly began, and by the time this one came about all the streets that were most anti last time were now leading the way to see a CPZ in place.

I can see why the Council is keen to avoid this happening again, particularly for only a couple of streets which voted no when its experience is that these will quickly become parking magnets, and will almost certainly ask for one quickly after. Its merely predicting the inevitable result and bringing it into play.

I for one welcome the peace and quiet that will begin, will look forward to not being stalked by commuter drivers, the end of arguments and violence and constant cars driving dangerously to race for a space, and look forward to being in a street that is much quieter again. At roughly ?2.40 a week, thats a bargain.

[Earl Aelfheah]

jimlad48 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The cost of Southwark parking permits have gone up

> ?5 in about 10 years.

>

> These sort of consultations never make everyone

> happy, but in the case of a couple of the streets

> that wanted to be left out, then the salutary tale

> I'd offer is that the council did just this back

> in 2012 when it last consulted the toastrack area.

> There was a split so they created a split CPZ,

> which in turn resulted in everyone not wanting to

> pay parking their cars a few streets over, and at

> the same time increased pressure happened when all

> the commuters started parking there too. Demands

> for a new consultation quickly began, and by the

> time this one came about all the streets that were

> most anti last time were now leading the way to

> see a CPZ in place.

>

> I can see why the Council is keen to avoid this

> happening again, particularly for only a couple of

> streets which voted no when its experience is that

> these will quickly become parking magnets, and

> will almost certainly ask for one quickly after.

> Its merely predicting the inevitable result and

> bringing it into play.

>

> I for one welcome the peace and quiet that will

> begin, will look forward to not being stalked by

> commuter drivers, the end of arguments and

> violence and constant cars driving dangerously to

> race for a space, and look forward to being in a

> street that is much quieter again. At roughly

> ?2.40 a week, thats a bargain.

This is exactly the problem with CPZs. They just displace traffic onto (usually a smaller number of) streets just outside the area. So they cause more acute problems in surrounding streets. I don't see it as so community minded myself.

[jimlad48]

There are no streets left in the local area which arent a CPZ - we were the last area not to be one, so we got all the traffic. There is quite literally nowhere for the traffic to go now other than to displace onto public transport. So it won't displace onto local streets - there isn't anywhere left that isnt a CPZ already in Southwark.

[TheArtfulDogger]

jimlad48 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So it

> won't displace onto local streets - there isn't

> anywhere left that isnt a CPZ already in

> Southwark.

Obviously not a frequent visitor to East Dulwich then jimlad

[sally buying]

Nor all points South of Bellenden Village.

It is Southwark's plan to make all roads revenue producing in the fullness of time displacing motorised transport.

[jimlad48]

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> jimlad48 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > So it

> > won't displace onto local streets - there isn't

> > anywhere left that isnt a CPZ already in

> > Southwark.

>

>

> Obviously not a frequent visitor to East Dulwich

> then jimlad

Fair one - but the difference is probably that East Dulwich isn't as good for commuting as the Toast Rack / other streets locally are. I doubt you'll see many people shift there. The reason these streets got so busy was because they were on busy commuter routes with multiple bus and train stations within a 5 minute walk nearby - not sure that there is anywhere similar in ED that still qualifies.

[northlondoner]

Council are imposing the cpz here despite having a tiny vote in favour. Odious. Very North Korea

[jimlad48]

Strange how democracy becomes North Korean when you don?t get the outcome you wanted! I campaigned heavily for a YES vote and the truth about what happened is simple. The council was not remotely interested in giving a CPZ consultation as previous toastrack votes had always been ?no?.

The parking situation had got vastly worse and several residents, including myself had independently been setting up campaign groups to get the situation looked at again. We all worked together very effectively to talk to the council who made clear the only way that a consultation was happening was if over 250 local residents signed a petition asking for a consultation to happen and acknowledging the cost.

This led to many months of work on peoples doorsteps and leafletting trying to build local support for a CPZ. We were overwhelmed by responses, and presented a petition to the council at a public meeting last summer where the case for a CPZ consultation was put to them. They voted in favour of the peoples request (e.g. they listened to the will of the people and acted on it).

I also spent a lot of time during the month long voluntary consultation campaigning for a yes vote and to a lesser exent during the statutory one too. At each point the message was clear, the democratic majority of the people voted yes not no for a CPZ. The council commented in writing that there was statistically significant turnout at the voluntary consultation (far more than usual which is about 5-10%).

Ultimately this went through because people campaigned hard for a Yes vote and the No vote didn?t try to campaign against the CPZ. I appreciate not everyone likes the CPZ result, but I find the suggestion that its being imposed by a tiny number is simply not true ? this has been an intensely democratic process with the people setting the agenda and the council acceding to their requests.

I am delighted that the CPZ is coming and cannot wait for the peace quiet and calm that it will bring to the Toastrack. I cannot wait for the life changing difference it is going to make to elderly residents, disabled residents and parents with young families, many of whom have told us (often whilst deeply upset) about the stress that not being able to park is causing them. This is not about not being able to park outside your house, its about getting palliative care nurse visits cancelled. Its about people spending upwards of an hour waiting for a space to appear nearly half a mile away with tired toddlers and then trying to handle shopping. Its about people withdrawing their child to nursery because there wont be a space for the other mobility impaired child on their return (who doesn?t qualify for a disabled badge). Its about another elderly almost housebound resident with limited mobility being unable to park and soiling themselves in the car while they waited for a space. Its about not having to call the police because of fight s breaking out between non resident drivers over parking spaces.

I am over the moon that this will all soon be a bad memory. I am only to happy to pay a tiny amount of money for the peace of mind that it will bring and the difference to peoples lives it will make.

Thank god for democracy, it seems here to have been thriving and flourishing and anything but 'North Korean'.

[first mate]

The Council and certain Councillors have been hellbent on forcing through CPZ for years. They have used every tactic imagineable to place as much pressure on car parking as possble. They are winning and soon we will all have to live with CPZ. The next stated aim is to vastly reduce traffic on ED roads. No doubt there will be some wiley way to achieve this- unusually prolonged roadworks for instance?

Meantime, local public transport seems to be going down the plughole.

[rupert james]

"It is the council?s responsibility to manage kerbside space. The council has a limit of three permits per address to ensure that there is enough kerbside space for everyone".

Are people aware of this ruling? I was never consulted.

Question. Large Victorian house 3 adult children and 2 parents. each has a car, as is the norm these days, what then?

[rendelharris]

rupert james Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Question. Large Victorian house 3 adult children

> and 2 parents. each has a car, as is the norm

> these days, what then?

If that's the norm (I suspect it's not, over half of London's adults don't own a car at all) it's about time it was broken. I can't imagine circumstances in London (might be different in the country if all had jobs in different towns) where it would be necessary for a house of five adults to have five cars. Too much discussion of transport is geared towards determining how things can be changed to accommodate our ridiculous excess consumption, rather than determining how our excessive consumption should be changed to fit our environment. If a family of five demand five street parking permits they should, quite rightly, be told to take a hike.

[jimlad48]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rupert james Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Question. Large Victorian house 3 adult

> children

> > and 2 parents. each has a car, as is the norm

> > these days, what then?

>

> If that's the norm (I suspect it's not, over half

> of London's adults don't own a car at all) it's

> about time it was broken. I can't imagine

> circumstances in London (might be different in the

> country if all had jobs in different towns) where

> it would be necessary for a house of five adults

> to have five cars. Too much discussion of

> transport is geared towards determining how things

> can be changed to accommodate our ridiculous

> excess consumption, rather than determining how

> our excessive consumption should be changed to fit

> our environment. If a family of five demand five

> street parking permits they should, quite rightly,

> be told to take a hike.

Totally agree- while I am sure some families may have more than one car, I can't imagine very many families have 5 cars. I'm afraid in some of those cases they're unfortunately going to be out of luck. Its a shame, but do you really need 5 cars in London?

[sally buying]

2 young adults living at home because they can not get on the housing ladder but have a motor vehicle, father who is self employed and needs a works vehicle, and a mother who needs her car for work and pleasure because husband only has a works vehicle.

That sounds like the norm.

All have road tax/insurance and all legally allowed on the road.

It is not Southwark's job to tell people what they are allowed to have or do and not be told to take a hike.

[rendelharris]

sally buying Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 2 young adults living at home because they can not

> get on the housing ladder but have a motor

> vehicle, father who is self employed and needs a

> works vehicle, and a mother who needs her car for

> work and pleasure because husband only has a works

> vehicle.

>

> That sounds like the norm.

>

> All have road tax/insurance and all legally

> allowed on the road.

>

> It is not Southwark's job to tell people what they

> are allowed to have or do and not be told to take

> a hike.

Being taxed and insured does not confer a right to park wherever you please. It is, in fact, Southwark's job as controller of (almost all) the highways in the borough to decide on the parking restrictions applicable. Obviously you don't like it and would like to be allowed to park wherever you please and for people to be as greedy as they want in the matter of the number of vehicles owned per household, but that's the reality.

[Droler]

Grove Park/Dog Kennel under CPZ consultation now - they will get one. Then Bellenden Road area will be next and finally East Dulwich. It's inevitable.

[jimlad48]

I think grove park will go yes - they have a lot of problens with station and KCL parking according to friends.

[northlondoner]

jimlad48 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Strange how democracy becomes North Korean when

> you don?t get the outcome you wanted! I campaigned

> heavily for a YES vote and the truth about what

> happened is simple. The council was not remotely

> interested in giving a CPZ consultation as

> previous toastrack votes had always been ?no?.

>

> The parking situation had got vastly worse and

> several residents, including myself had

> independently been setting up campaign groups to

> get the situation looked at again. We all worked

> together very effectively to talk to the council

> who made clear the only way that a consultation

> was happening was if over 250 local residents

> signed a petition asking for a consultation to

> happen and acknowledging the cost.

>

> This led to many months of work on peoples

> doorsteps and leafletting trying to build local

> support for a CPZ. We were overwhelmed by

> responses, and presented a petition to the council

> at a public meeting last summer where the case for

> a CPZ consultation was put to them. They voted in

> favour of the peoples request (e.g. they listened

> to the will of the people and acted on it).

>

> I also spent a lot of time during the month long

> voluntary consultation campaigning for a yes vote

> and to a lesser exent during the statutory one

> too. At each point the message was clear, the

> democratic majority of the people voted yes not no

> for a CPZ. The council commented in writing that

> there was statistically significant turnout at the

> voluntary consultation (far more than usual which

> is about 5-10%).

>

> Ultimately this went through because people

> campaigned hard for a Yes vote and the No vote

> didn?t try to campaign against the CPZ. I

> appreciate not everyone likes the CPZ result, but

> I find the suggestion that its being imposed by a

> tiny number is simply not true ? this has been an

> intensely democratic process with the people

> setting the agenda and the council acceding to

> their requests.

>

> I am delighted that the CPZ is coming and cannot

> wait for the peace quiet and calm that it will

> bring to the Toastrack. I cannot wait for the life

> changing difference it is going to make to elderly

> residents, disabled residents and parents with

> young families, many of whom have told us (often

> whilst deeply upset) about the stress that not

> being able to park is causing them. This is not

> about not being able to park outside your house,

> its about getting palliative care nurse visits

> cancelled. Its about people spending upwards of an

> hour waiting for a space to appear nearly half a

> mile away with tired toddlers and then trying to

> handle shopping. Its about people withdrawing

> their child to nursery because there wont be a

> space for the other mobility impaired child on

> their return (who doesn?t qualify for a disabled

> badge). Its about another elderly almost

> housebound resident with limited mobility being

> unable to park and soiling themselves in the car

> while they waited for a space. Its about not

> having to call the police because of fight s

> breaking out between non resident drivers over

> parking spaces.

>

> I am over the moon that this will all soon be a

> bad memory. I am only to happy to pay a tiny

> amount of money for the peace of mind that it will

> bring and the difference to peoples lives it will

> make.

>

> Thank god for democracy, it seems here to have

> been thriving and flourishing and anything but

> 'North Korean'.

The council's bogus "consultation" exercise got an 18% response rate. So the selfish wishes of a miniscule minority are being imposed on the rest of us. That is not democaracy. The council has an acgtive policy of silence equals consent. Again - not not democratic - and yes....highly north korea.

[jimlad48]

How exactly is the consultation 'bogus'? It was asked for by the people, voted on by the people and supported by the people. Or in your eyes was it the wrong sort of people?

You're getting incredibly emotional because a group of local residents used the democratic process, engaged their council, put a compelling case forward and persuaded the council to hold the consultation. Thats democracy in action.

You're getting incredibly emotional because there was a statistically higher turnout than usual, of whom the majority favoured an outcome you didnt want. Sorry, but thats also democracy in action.

Serious question - if you assume 'silence equals consent', why then did the council not put a CPZ in for many years over multiple previous consultations? After all a tiny majority of people voted against it then, but following your logic, if silence equals consent, why didnt the council ignore these repeated NO votes and put a CPZ in place anyway?

Would you be complaining now if an 18% turn out had been a NO vote because the selfish wishes of a miniscule minority were being imposed on the rest of us? I highly doubt it.

Simply put, this was a fantastic advert for local democracy. You are sulking like a petulant toddler and insulting the excellent Southwark council parking team and council simply because the majority of residents who chose to vote held a view different to your own.

The only person here who seems to be anti-democratic is yourself.

[rendelharris]

northlondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The council's bogus "consultation" exercise got an

> 18% response rate. So the selfish wishes of a

> miniscule minority are being imposed on the rest

> of us. That is not democaracy.

Assuming the council gave every household proper notification of the consultation and counted the results properly - and you don't seem to be saying they didn't - then it's perfectly democratic. A third of the electorate didn't turn out for last year's election - I wish we could cancel the result but that's how it works. Democracy assumes that if people don't participate they don't care, and surely that's true. The council can't force people to return their forms.

[rupert james]

Perhaps you should ask from the 18% turnout who was for and who was against.

That would give you a better idea of how the decision was arrived at.

From experience if 10 people vote for something, 6 for and 4 against southwark will say 60% were in favour and forget those against.

[jimlad48]

From memory it was something like a 60% yes vote overall, with a strong yes majority in some areas, and the odd no vote. The council view was that if it left out the small number of roads voting no (Denman) then they would quickly be overwhelmed by traffic as being literally the only road in a very large area that had free parking.